Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202304392)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304392

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

21 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. She has lived with her son at the property since February 2016.
  2. On 6 January 2023 the resident reported a leak from her toilet. The landlord attended on 16 January 2023 but was unable to complete the repair the same day. The contractor retuned the following day and, while repairing the leak, a pipe burst, flooding the property. The water damaged the flooring throughout the property. The resident had to call the fire brigade who arrived around 40 minutes later and turned off the mains water supply. She reported the incident to the landlord who offered her temporary accommodation while the flat dried out, but she refused due to the distance from her work and child’s school.
  3. The landlord provided a dehumidifier and on 19 January 2023 paid £50 to her energy meter as a goodwill gesture. It logged a repair to replace the kitchen and bathroom floor on 24 January 2023.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2023. She said the flood had ruined her carpets and damaged her other property. The water damage had caused mould to grow in her son’s bedroom. There were outstanding repairs causing her and her family to sleep in the same room.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 February 2023. It provided a summary of the repairs from January 2023 and contact details for its insurance provider. It passed works to its contractor to conduct a mould wash. It asked the resident to report a new repair request online to inspect the electrics in the property. It apologised for the impact the flood had on the resident and for 3 additional repairs it had to conduct to the toilet following the flood. It highlighted the performance issues with its contractor. It offered £50 compensation, which it paid directly to the resident’s rent account.
  6. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 20 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with the compensation offered and action from the landlord’s contractor. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 April 2023. It said that it had conducted a mould wash on 20 March 2023. It apologised for the time taken to complete all repairs, including the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom flooring. It offered to refund the costs incurred by the resident in cleaning her carpets. It asked her to provide evidence of the additional energy usage (from the use of the dehumidifier) that it would reimburse. It increased its offer of compensation to £313 which it credited to her rent account.
  7. The landlord replaced the kitchen and bathroom flooring on 9 May 2023.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the contractor’s insurer paid out for the replacement carpets in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales in which it will conduct repairs. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours. It attends routine repairs within 2 weeks and it aims to resolve them within 1 month.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will credit its compensation awards to a resident’s rent account when the account is in arrears.

Handling of a leak in the property

  1. The records show that the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet were reasonable. It attended the property around 6 working days after the report on 6 January 2023. Once the flood occurred on 17 January 2023, the landlord returned to conduct further repairs within 24 hours. The resident said that the flood was the fault of the contractor. Although we are unable to determine that the operative was at fault, this was not disputed by the landlord.
  2. The landlord appropriately vacuumed the carpet and installed a dehumidifier on 18 January 2023. This would have mitigated some of the impact the water damage would have on the resident. It also appropriately offered temporary accommodation within 24 hours of the leak, albeit the resident declined the offer as unsuitable.
  3. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It should ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted any assessment of the risks present in the property. It should have inspected the water damage and considered the impact this would have on the resident. It could have made an informed decision about the condition of the property and if a decant was necessary in the circumstances. It should have revisited its offer of temporary accommodation considering the resident’s needs. Its failure to do so contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  4. In her complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2023, the resident said that the flood caused substantial damage to her belongings. She raised concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property. She said the mould in her son’s bedroom meant that she was living in 1 room of the property. The landlord sought to address many of the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response on 24 February 2023. It was fair to apologise for the impact the flood had on the resident. It appropriately directed the resident to its liability insurer. Its decision to raise the issues with its contractor show its learning from the case.
  5. However, the landlord did not use its complaint handling to effectively resolve the substantive issues. Its offer of £50 compensation was not reflective of the detriment caused. It should have scheduled an inspection of the electrics in the property, rather than passing this request back to the resident to report online. It should have recognised that there may be substantial damage to the property and scheduled an inspection and risk assessment. It should have assessed the damp and mould within 10 days and agreed the best course of action with the resident. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it initially requested a mould wash in the property on 24 January 2023. In its stage 1 response, it said that it had passed this request to its contractor. It conducted the mould wash on 20 March 2023. This was an unacceptable delay of around 39 working days. It was also a missed opportunity to properly assess the water damage to the property and the impact on the resident and her son.
  7. The landlord identified the need to replace some flooring on 24 January 2023. This was around 5 working days after the leak occurred. The contractor attended around 26 working days later, on 1 March 2023, to inspect and measure up. It replaced the flooring on 9 May 2023, a further 46 working days later. In total, the landlord took around 15 weeks (following the leak) to replace the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. This was an unacceptable delay and would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  8. In its stage 2 response on 26 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged that there were unreasonable delays in its repairs to the toilet and to replace the flooring. It appropriately apologised for the continued impact this had on the resident and the inconvenience caused. Its offer of £313 compensation amounted to around £20 per week for the period. It made this calculation based on high impact for distress as set out in its compensation policy. It was fair in its assessment of the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. However, it failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to put things right for the resident. It did not address the resident’s complaint that the landlord provided the carpet at the start of her tenancy as a new build property. It did not recognise that there was no survey of the property or risk assessment of the resident’s circumstances.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property. The landlord’s initial response to the reports of a leak were reasonable. It conducted repairs to resolve the subsequent flood within its emergency timescales. It recognised the delays to repair the toilet and replace the kitchen and bathroom flooring in its complaint responses. It appropriately directed the resident to its insurer to claim for damages. However, there were no records that show the landlord assessed the condition of the property or the impact the water damage had on the resident. It did not use its complaint handling effectively to consider these requirements. The resident described worsening conditions in the property following the flood and the impact this had on her son. The landlord did not seek to resolve the resident’s situation or consider the loss of her bedroom. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £287 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  10. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident. The landlord should not offset the additional compensation awarded against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation. It should deduct any payment already made to the resident following its stage 2 complaint. The landlord should not offset any additional compensation against the resident’s rent account.
    3. Conduct a survey of the property to ensure that there are no outstanding issues resulting from the flood in January 2023. It must provide a copy of its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.